Three more pesticides commonly used in the United States have now been linked to heightened Parkinson’s risk. Image credit: Abstract Aerial Art/Getty Images.
Parkinson’s disease prevalence is growing fast, and similar to some other neurological conditions, its causes are unclear.
The potential impact of chemicals that are toxic to neurons in the part of the brain affected by Parkinson’s disease has been investigated since the 1980s.
Despite this, many chemicals, particularly pesticides and herbicides that are known to pose a risk, are still used in many parts of the world.
Researchers have now identified a risk of Parkinson’s disease associated with exposure to 14 pesticides.
Parkinson’s disease is the fastest growingTrusted Source neurological disorder in the world at present, and the reason why is unclear.
The neurons in this part of the brain create dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is used for signalling in the brain. Loss of this signalling affects motor control, a common symptom in people with Parkinson’s disease.
There are a number of theories as to how and why Parkinson’s disease develops. One theory is that a peptide called alpha-synuclein accumulates in the substantia nigra neurons of people with Parkinson’s disease.
These accumultations are known as Lewy bodiesTrusted Source, and they appear to damage the neurons and prevent them from creating the dopamine necessary for signalling.
Other theories include genetic inheritance and mitochondrial dysfunction, similar to some theories about Alzheimer’s disease. Another theory is that Parkinson’s disease is caused by exposure to environmental toxins, such as pesticides and herbicides.
The idea that some chemicals could damage the neurons in the substantia nigra, and lead to Parkinson’s disease has been around since the 1980sTrusted Source.
Researchers from Amherst College, MA, Washington University in St Louis, MI, and Barrow Neurological Institute, AZ, analyzed data on 21,549,400 Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.
They then mapped usage of average annual pesticide application from 1992–2008, down to a county level.
They then used these data to look for an association between exposure to 65 well-documented pesticides and Parkinson’s disease risk across these areas. They also adjusted data for air pollution, rural/ urban residence, and median income.
Results showed an association between 14 pesticides and increased Parkinson’s disease risk in the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains region. Three of these were found to have the strongest relationship with increased risk: simazine, lindane, and atrazine.
People living in counties in the top decile for simazine use were found to have a 36% increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, while people living in the counties with the highest use of atrazine and lindane had a 31% and 25% increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, respectively.
The risk found was dose-dependent. All three of these pesticide are restricted in their use in the European Union and United Kingdom.
Lead author Dr. Brittany Krzyzanowski, a research assistant professor in the Neuroepidemiology Research Program of the Department of Neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute, told Medical News Today:
“This study was inspired by our previous work which found a strong association between Parkinson’s disease and cropland density in the Northern Great Plains. In our initial study, we used cropland density as a proxy for pesticide exposure. In the current study, we used data on the different kinds of pesticides to see which pesticides were driving the association between Parkinson’s disease and cropland in this region.”
Determining causation was challenging, she said, and work was being done by the team to get a more accurate picture of the impact of pesticide exposure.
“Our work adds to the existing literature by identifying other pesticides that may also increase the risk of [Parkinson’s disease] in specific regions of the U.S. Some pesticides have been banned in the past based upon evidence of negative health effects,“ she told us.
“We are conducting currently, studies using higher-resolution exposure data to inform public health policy in the future,” Dr. Krzyzanowski added.
These findings support decades of research that has shown pesticide use has a dose-dependent effect on Parkinson’s disease risk, said Prof. Bastiaan R. Bloem, a neurologist and director of the Radboud University Medical Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who has written extensively on legislation surrounding pesticide and herbicide usage. Prof. Bloem was not involved in this research.
One of the challenges of regulating pesticide use to help avoid Parkinson’s disease, is that it was very difficult to determine the specific cause of an individual’s Parkinson’s disease, he said:
“Whether your Parkinson’s is caused by exposure to pesticides [is a difficult question to answer], and what makes it particularly difficult when it comes to a particular pesticide is [that exposure is] determined by what you eat, what you breathe, where you work, and people change when they leave and move house. They change jobs, they change diets.“
He wondered: “The from the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands found that of the nine European countries where they measured pesticides in the households of farmers and their neighbours, they found no less than 100 different pesticides, and what on Earth is the sum of all those small quantities, of all those pesticides?”
In a recent comment piece published in Nature Reviews Neurology, he points out that the E.U. recently extended marketing authorization for the use of glyphosate, the herbicide found in popular weed killer Roundup, for another 10 years, despite evidence from animal studies showing it affects the substantia nigra.
He argues that rather than the burden of proof of safety being on researchers, it should instead be on the companies, to prove their chemicals are safe.
Dr. Krzyzanowski said the people most likely to be at risk are those “actively working with these compounds as well as those living within proximity to farmland where these compounds are being applied.”
Different levels of risk were associated with application at ground level, versus, via aircraft for example, she said.
Exposure to these chemicals could be via inhalation, but they could also be ingested, warned Prof. Bloem.
“An additional concern is that these pesticides reached the food chain, for example, red wines in Dutch supermarkets. In the year 2023, contained seven different pesticides, including glyphosate. If you drink a red wine from a top supermarket, you’re drinking Roundup,” he warned.
None of the organic products sampled contained the chemicals, which present a dangerous health threat to babies, researchers say.
Nearly 40% of conventional baby food products analyzed in a new US study were found to contain toxic pesticides, while none of the organic products sampled in the survey contained the chemicals.
The research, conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) non-profit, looked at 73 products and found at least one pesticide in 22 of them. Many products showed more than one pesticide, and the substances present a dangerous health threat to babies, researchers said.
cides, while none of the organic products sampled in the survey contained the chemicals.
The research, conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) non-profit, looked at 73 products and found at least one pesticide in 22 of them. Many products showed more than one pesticide, and the substances present a dangerous health threat to babies, researchers said.
“Babies and young children are particularly vulnerable to the health risks posed by pesticides in food – and food is the way most children will be exposed to pesticides,” said Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst at EWG and co-author of the report.
The study looked at products from Beech-Nut, Gerber and Parent’s Choice, though it did not specifically identify which of the companies’ products contained pesticide residue.
Among pesticides it detected were acetamiprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide that harms bees and humans, and captan, which is linked to cancer. Fludioxonil, a product commonly used on fruits, vegetables and cereals, was found in five products and is thought to harm fetal development, cause changes in immune system cells and disrupt hormones.
Other pesticides are linked to nervous and reproductive system damage, and very little public toxicity data exists for four pesticides identified in the study.
Apple-based products were the most likely to contain high levels of pesticide residue, and blueberries, pears and strawberries are also among produce that commonly hold high levels of the chemicals.
The best way to avoid pesticides is to buy organic baby food products, which are subjected to much stricter regulations, and are now often comparable in price, said Olga Naidenko, a study co-author and who leads children’s research for EWG. The non-profit has also developed produce guides that show pesticide residue levels.
The research did find some good news: EWG compared its findings to a similar study it conducted in 1995 and found pesticide levels in baby foods are broadly decreasing. That research detected pesticide in 55% of products tested, and found more dangerous pesticides.
The passage of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996 required the EPA to ensure a “reasonable certainty” that pesticide residues would not harm children and infants. Among the pesticides EWG no longer found is chlorpyrifos, which in very small amounts can permanently damage babies’ brains, and was banned for food use in 2021.
“Advocacy works,” Evans said. “Any pesticide residue in baby food is concerning, but parents should feel reassured that some of the most toxic chemicals we found in our 1995 study are no longer being detected.”
Still, oversight is weak and any level of exposure to pesticides is a concern for babies, Naidenko noted. And the process of banning chemicals often involves drawn out administrative and court battles, while consumers are provided contradictory information from chemical manufacturers, regulators and public health advocates.
“At some level the public doesn’t care, it just says, ‘We don’t want these pesticides in baby food,’” Naidenko said.
Strawberries, spinach and kale among most pesticide-heavy
Conventionally farmed kale could contain up to 18 pesticides
About 70% of fresh produce sold in the US has pesticide residues on it even after it is washed, according to a health advocacy group.
According to the Environmental Working Group’s annual analysis of US Department of Agriculture data, strawberries, spinach and kale are among the most pesticide-heavy produce, while avocados, sweetcorn and pineapples had the lowest level of residues.
More than 92% of kale tested contained two or more pesticide residues, according to the analysis, and a single sample of conventionally farmed kale could contain up to 18 different pesticides.
Dacthal – the most common pesticide found, which was detected in nearly 60% of kale samples, is banned in Europe and classified as a possible human carcinogen in the US.
“We definitely acknowledge and support that everybody should be eating healthy fruits and vegetables as part of their diet regardless of if they’re conventional or organic,” said Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist working with the EWG.
“But what we try to highlight with the Shopper’s Guide to Produce is building on a body of evidence that shows mixtures of pesticides can have adverse effects.”
Other foods on the group’s “dirty dozen” list include grapes, cherries, apples, tomatoes and potatoes. In contrast, its “clean 15” list includes avocados, onions and cauliflower.
Leonardo Trasande, an environmental medicine specialist at the New York University medical school, called the EWG report “widely respected” and said it can inform shoppers who want to buy some organic fruits and vegetables, but would like to know which ones they could prioritize.Quick Guide
What foods contain the most pesticides?
Show
Despite a growing body of research, scientists say it is difficult to pinpoint how many pesticides people are exposed to in their daily lives, and in what quantity. And it is also hard to say how those chemicals in combination affect the body.
One recent French study found that people eating organic foods were at a significantly lower risk of developing cancer, although it suggested that if those findings were confirmed, the underlying factors would require more research. Nutritional experts at Harvard University cautioned that that study did not analyze residue levels in participants’ bodies to confirm exposure levels.
While 90% of Americans have detectable pesticide levels in their urine and blood, “the health consequences of consuming pesticide residues from conventionally grown foods are unknown, as are the effects of choosing organic foods or conventionally grown foods known to have fewer pesticide residues,” they said.
A separate Harvard study found that for women undergoing fertility treatment, those who ate more high-pesticide fruits and vegetables were less likely to have a live birth.
The CDC explains that “a wide range of health effects, acute and chronic, are associated with exposures to some pesticides,” including nervous system impacts, skin and eye irritation, cancer and endocrine disorders.
“The health risks from pesticide exposure depend on the toxicity of the pesticides, the amount a person is exposed to, and the duration and the route of exposure,” the CDC says, noting evidence suggests children are at higher risk.
The Environmental Protection Agency sets rules for how pesticides are used, but those rules do not necessarily prevent cumulative exposure in a person’s diet.
The agency is fighting a court order to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that is associated with development disabilities in children.
EPA has also scaled back what types of exposure it will consider when evaluating human health risks. And President Trump has appointed a former executive from the industry lobbying group the American Chemistry Council, Nancy Beck, as the head of its toxic chemical unit.
EVEN THE TICKS ARE VANISHINGThe reports continue to come in from around the world. The billions of mobile devices and the 9,000 satellites are rapidly replacing the bugs, birds and beasts of the Earth. Patricia writes from Missouri: “I have been living in rural southwest Missouri for the last 25 years without a mobile phone. When I bought my home in 2005, the soil on the lot was extremely poor and very compacted from having been driven over with riding mowers for many years. I wanted to bring it back and turn my whole yard into a ‘food forest’. I started by sowing clover and cultivating the dandelions instead of trying to get rid of them as so many people do. After the clover started to blossom, I noticed it was being visited by thousands of bumblebees. I had so many hummingbirds that three feeders were needed to keep them from fighting for access. Mosquitoes were almost non-existent around my area. “At night I could see hundreds of bats flying around, and in spring the yard and whole area was filled with the peeping of little green tree frogs. They would perch along the rim of my swimming pool and lay their eggs in the water. (Note, the town does not chlorinate the water supply and I do not chlorinate the pool.) Every morning I would check the pool for their eggs and move them to a small pool that I set up just for the frogs, where I would feed the tadpoles and change the water as needed (keeping the tadpoles in buckets during the changes). “After I had been living here for six years, the first cell tower was erected at the edge of town. Over the next few years, more towers went up, until the whole area was saturated with RF radiation. The town also used a federal grant to change all the electric meters to electronic ones and do away with the analog meters. Each year since, the number of bumblebees seemed to shrink by half, even though I still have the clover and dandelions. During the past 4-5 years, I could count the number of bumblebees on one hand. The last two years I’ve seen only one or two per YEAR. The hummingbirds are totally gone. I used to find their nests in the fall when thinning. “Worst of all is the complete annihilation of the tree frogs. Even friends who live out in the sticks and have ponds on their property have noticed the recent “silent spring” phenomenon. Speaking of silent springs: It used to be nearly impossible to sleep past dawn with the windows open in spring, summer and fall here due to the enormous numbers of songbirds that produced a daily morning and evening symphony. Their numbers have declined to the point where I have to actively listen for them in order to hear them at all. “I could go on about the diminished numbers of butterflies, crickets, praying mantises, spiders and earthworms I’ve observed. The declines are not limited to the smaller critters; there used to always be cottontail rabbits in the yard, and I haven’t seen one of them in recent years. I have lost more pets to cancer since 2010 than I care to count. There aren’t even any mice anymore! My personal health has declined severely as well. At the same time there have been notable increases in the numbers of mosquitoes, chiggers and ticks — to the point where it is miserable spending a few minutes outside.” Birds and spiders eat ticks and chiggers. Birds and bats eat mosquitoes. So mosquitoes, chiggers and ticks, being hardy, multiply when their predators are gone. But not for long: Marie writes from Sweden: “Even the ticks are gone in some areas.” Daniel writes from Los Angeles:“I hardly see any moths anymore.” Sonya writes from Surrey, England: “Last year I only had two large flies in the house and both died within a few hours. When I was a teenager in the Midlands during the 1950s, I couldn’t open my bedroom window during the hot summers because there were banks of midges swarming under the eaves; even here in Surrey five years or so ago, there used to be a few midges around inside the house during a hot evening. I saw none last year.” Renee write from the UK: “For the last 3 years, we’ve seen fewer and fewer bees, butterflies and other pollinators. This last growing season we saw only a few bees or butterflies — hardly any insects at all!” Robert writes from Austria: “I worked for 30 years in a large hospital in Vienna. There I worked with the air conditioning systems. They were very large and had correspondingly large filters. When I first worked there in the ‘90s, we had to sweep up all sorts of flies under the external filters. A 110 liter plastic bag was pretty much full. 30 years later there are only a few hand shovels full (approximately 20 liters) to sweep up. The continuous decline of insects has really shocked me. The e-radiation decimates the insects so much. It is the worst massacre in the world. It finally has to stop.” Marianna writes from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: “There are new 5G cell phone antennas put onto an apartment house here with a giant crane. It’s a room of antennas on two buildings near me and I am suffering! “There are very few songbirds or robins, no skylarks, no sparrows, fewer ducks and Barrow’s goldeneyes, fewer crows, etc. Also, there have been no flowers on bushes or fruit produced as in the past. I have watched a fig tree produce fruit in 2022 only to see the fruit harden and shrivel at harvest time as all the leaves cascaded to the ground at once. This year I watched again and actually got a few handfuls of figs but watched the majority shrivel and harden and the leaves fall in one swoop before fall! It’s devastating and almost no one sees or cares. There are few bumblebees and zero honey bees. My son does art work on the demise of bees! Harmony Arts Festival, West Vancouver.” Nat writes from Newcastle, Australia: “There is now a noticeable decrease in insects in our region, even flies and mosquitoes. At this time of year flies and mossies are a pest and appear in great numbers but not this year. I could count the number of flies I see each day on one hand and I have yet to see a mosquito. Spiders are a rarity in the garden now and should be abundant. Five years ago I had an accident and couldn’t drive for several months. A pair of finches took the opportunity to build a nest outside of the garage, under the house, and continued to breed there until this year. There were thirty-four finches sitting on the power lines earlier this year but they seem to have gone. What have we done to the planet? Howell writes from Thailand: “I went to Penang, Malaysia. In the evening I could hear an insect sound but then realised it was coming from only one place. I looked and saw it was coming from a loudspeaker. In the day the hotel played bird sounds because there are so few birds and insects now. “Back in my hometown about an hour from Bangkok I realised the same thing was happening, no mosquitoes, very very few cockroaches, no ants, et cetera et cetera. “This morning I was shocked and saddened by seeing only one House Martin from the 8 nests on the wall below my window. That they have actually survived for so long is remarkable because there is so little food for them–so few insects. The colony has been there for years. One day I noticed a House Martin on the ground that could not fly because its wings had been mutated and were too wide. “I also saw a squashed 5-legged frog on a walk. I cut down my walking because noticing the lack of insects was very upsetting. There are urban birds like sparrows and pigeons but even their numbers seem to be declining. “It is good to see people around the world waking up to what is happening. Locals here are happy there are no more mosquitoes and very very few cockroaches. They do not realise what is causing it and they do not care.” Bob writes from England: “I am very old and have always been a naturalist and observer of changes in the world of nature. In the past two decades, I have noticed the decline of butterflies especially those which migrate from France to England, and the absence of insects on the car windscreen. On our farmland we always had a strong rabbit population which soon picked up after the myxi [myxomatosis] decimation, but now I rarely see one. In past years in the spring at night we would have hundreds of Maybugs (cockchavers) flying into our house windows; I have not seen one for years. “The work you are doing is essential as you know, our natural wildlife has been my life, several years ago I concluded that we had even then lost some seventy percent of it. We humans are a part of that wildlife. Since the introduction of atomic weapons our future has never been certain, but this is far more subtle and I believe threatening.” Barbara writes from Québec, Canada: “I noticed a decline in the insects, birds and creepy crawly things after a cell phone tower went up behind our family’s home over 20 years ago. After two years, seven of our neighbors had died from cancers and heart attacks and all the animal life vanished. The June bugs died in the ground. It is too sad to remember or recount all that we experienced while living there during that time as it was a time of pure evil and torture.” Author, poet and journalist Sean Arthur Joyce writes from Canada: “Today in our community in southeastern British Columbia is our local Christmas Bird Count. The results are positively eerie: hardly a bird to be found, and we live in a mountainous region that is at least 100 kilometres from the nearest major city. I’ve noticed just over the past couple of months that the birds coming to the feeder have plummeted. Where before, we had daily, regular visits from a dozen or so chickadees and nuthatches all through the year, this has dropped to the occasional pair only once or twice a week. At first I chalked this up to the squirrel monopolizing the feeder for a while, but since he stopped doing that the bird count has still not increased. “Given how far we are from a major city, and the fact that we have no 5G here (though we do have 4G cell service in some areas, but it doesn’t work outside the villages), I’m assuming we may be experiencing radiation from the Starlink satellites even in this semi-remote, rural area. “We’re going into a solar maximum cycle in 2024 (actually it has already started) according to scientists, which has already resulted in a flare affecting radio transmissions around the world. More are predicted in the coming months. There are days I pray we get such a major blast of solar flares from the sun that it knocks out ALL of the satellites. “Of course, that would knock us back about 200 years but maybe that’s the only way we’ll see a return of the bird life.” Maya writes from San Francisco: “My second-floor porch is at the bottom of a Prevailing North Wind funnel, that blows across the dozen backyards, that create the green space interior of our block. The south side of the porch is open to the sky, between buildings on either side that are much taller, creating the wind funnel, and at least a constant breeze. “When I first moved here four decades ago, I often counted 20 or 30 birds and many bees and butterflies every day. They stopped by the plants I set out for them on the porch as they flew both north and south. Now I only see one or two small birds a week scurrying across the porch floor. But never any bees, and maybe one or two small white butterflies a week. Beginning five or six years ago, I’ve walked the same path in Golden Gate Park several times a week, and counted 50 or 60 Canadian Geese every time. Now, maybe there are 15 or 20 of them. And all the various ducks and hawks are rarely seen. And the glorious breath-taking seasonal Blue Herons are gone. “Also now, there is a 5G tower more than 500 feet away, at eye level with the porch and my desk window. I spent a small fortune on EMF shielding screens for the desk area windows that look out on the porch. But they only shield 80% of the radiation. Lately I’ve noticed that when I must be at the computer for several hours, the left side of my face by the window, is red.” Henrik writes from Sweden: “I have seen the same thing happen here in Sweden with the insects. The crane fly and the wasp are gone. In my filled compost bucket there was not a single fruit fly in July and August. Flies and butterflies have also decreased.” Josephine writes from California: “All of my ants are gone. No rising population of ants rescuing eggs when I water my roses. No little house cleaners coming in for jelly left on the counter in the kitchen. None coming in during the rain.”
In accordance with the company’s ongoing efforts to censor all truth while promoting only establishment fake news on its platform, social media giant Facebook has decided to launch full-scale war against online free speech about vaccines.
Pandering to the demands by California Democrat Adam Schiff, Mark Zuckerberg and his team recently announced that they are now “exploring additional measures to best combat the problem” of Facebook users discussing and sharing information about how vaccines are harming and killing children via social media.
According to an official statement released by Facebook, the Bay Area-based corporation is planning to implement some changes to the platform in the very near future that may include “reducing or removing this type of content from recommendations, including Groups You Should Join, and demoting it in search results, while also ensuring that higher quality and more authoritative information is available.”
In other words, the only acceptable form of online speech pertaining to vaccines that will be allowed on Facebook is speech that conforms to whatever the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says is “accurate” and “scientific.” Anything else, even if it comes from scientific authorities with a differing viewpoint, will be classified as false by Facebook, and consequently demoted or removed.
Facebook’s censorship tactics are becoming more nefarious by the day. To keep up with the latest news, be sure to check out Censorship.news.
100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.
Facebook is quickly becoming the American government’s ministry of propaganda
Facebook’s rationale, of course, is that it’s simply looking out for the best interests of users who might be “misled” by information shared in Facebook groups suggesting that the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, as one example, isn’t nearly as safe as government health authorities claim.
And that’s just it: There are many things that the government is wrong about, but that have been officially sanctioned as “truth” by government propagandists. If Facebook bows down to these government hacks with regards to vaccines, there’s no telling what the company will try to ban from its platform in the future.
Not only did the government deny young Cassandra the right to make her own medical decisions, but it also overrode the will of her parents, who also opposed taking the chemotherapy route. In essence, the government forced Cassandra to undergo chemotherapy at gunpoint, and now it’s trying to do the exact same thing with Facebook.
If little Adam Schiff is successful at forcing Facebook to only allow information on its platform that conforms with the official government position on vaccines, the next step will be to outlaw the sharing of information on the platform about the dangers of chemotherapy, as well as the dangers of fluoride, pesticides, and other deadly chemicals that the government has deemed as “safe and effective.”
Soon there won’t be any free speech at all on Facebook, assuming the social media giant actually obeys this latest prompting by the government to steamroll people’s First Amendment rights online. And where will it end?
“These radical Leftists are domestic terrorists and suicidal cultists … they are the Stasi, the SS, the KGB and the Maoists rolled all into one. They absolutely will not stop until America as founded is completely ripped to shreds and replaced with an authoritarian communist-leaning regime run by the very same tyrants who tried to carry out an illegal political coup against President Trump.”
Biopesticides are particular types of pesticides, derived from the bacteria in plants and animals, that kill insects. Scientists in laboratories insert the genes of these bacterial pesticides into the DNA sequences of seedlings (i.e. Mycogen seeds) of our most popular crops, like corn, soy, and canola, and then claim they’re all totally safe for human consumption, even though they dissolve the digestive tracts and destroy the reproductive capabilities of worms, beetles, frogs, bees, birds, and just about anything else that eats them.
Biopesticides are commonly found in conventional foods like canola oil, cereal, granola bars, and oatmeal. One gleaming example is a certain brand of Corn Flakes, which contains ingredients registered as pesticides under EPA codes 524.581 and 68467-7. Many organisms in the GMO BT corn used for this nightmarish Monsanto-manufactured product produce bug killing pesticide.
After the toxic corn grows in the field, but before harvest, it’s also dosed with toxic neonicotinoid pesticides (that are killing off our bee population in droves), and then, to top it all off, the corn is further coated with carcinogenic weed killer herbicide (Roundup’s glyphosate), which functions as a drying agent, before the corn is cut down and stored in silos for further processing. The same horrific poisoning process is used for most U.S. grains also, including wheat and oats.
Still, medical doctors can’t seem to figure out why cancer and dementia cases are debilitating every other American, including children. Should there be a pesticide aisle at the supermarkets instead of a cereal aisle? This is not food, it’s poison.
Biopesticides target crop pests, but do they also target humans?
Biopesticides registration action documents reveal that most conventional processed foods contain ingredients that are genetically modified and also registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as bug killers, also known as “target pests.” Corporations like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer, and Syngenta are in the business of using chemicals and bacteria to kill anything that eats corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets or alfalfa. If those same chemicals give animals cancer and dementia in the long run, so be it. It’s all about profits, with no regard for human health, farm animal health, environmental health, or sustainability.
Target pests include the European corn borer, the Southwestern corn borer, the Southern cornstalk borer, the corn earworm, the fall armyworm, the Sugarcane borer, the Western corn rootworm, the Mexican corn rootworm, and the list goes on. Monsanto likes to brag in magazines and online about their “insect protected, herbicide-tolerant corn with interspersed refuge.”
In laymen’s terms, this means the corn’s seeds are genetically mutated so the plant grows and produces pesticides, the stalk contains weed-killing genes, and the bug-killing bacteria kills the larvae that nest and travel in the roots.
Are you and your children eating bug-killer and weed-killer daily, at every meal even, and then wondering why you all have severe allergies, headaches, asthma, chronic inflammation, skin disorders, brain fog, ADD, ADHD, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, depression and anxiety? Stop “wondering” and stop eating poison. You are being targeted for health destruction, just like the bugs and worms. You are being targeted for elimination, just like the weeds.
Monsanto found GUILTY of failing to warn consumers their corn, soy, and canola pesticides cause blood cancer
In a landmark case that’s sure to set the precedent for thousands more, a California jury found the most evil company on Earth, Monsanto (now owned and operated by Bayer), guilty and responsible for nearly $300 million in damages to the health of just one man, Dewayne Johnson. Talk about “weeding out” the truth. Johnson was a groundskeeper for a local school system and was diagnosed with blood cancer (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) after spraying the same poison we find in cereal, grains, and oats, on school grounds for several years. Obviously, some got on his skin and in his lungs.
What’s worse is that Monsanto has known this atrocity for decades, but they cover up the truth with their own falsified research and follow-up propaganda based on that “scientific” fraud.
That means that most conventional cereals not only contain GMOs that are essentially pesticides that cause cancer and dementia, but they’re also coated with the same blood-cancer-causing weed killer that debilitated Dewayne Johnson. How many millions of Americans could sue Monsanto for the same and win millions of dollars? Johnson’s body is now 80 percent covered in lesions and he’s expected to pass away some day in the next couple of years.
Do you use Roundup on your yard? Roundup contains 50 percent glyphosate. It runs into your garden and your pets soak it up through the pads in their paws. Never use Roundup. Switch to 100 percent organic food right now, because the price to pay for eating conventionally is an early death by cancer or dementia, or both.
Monsanto is showing some clear signs that they’re getting nervous as their dishonest practices come significantly closer to being brought to light on a grand scale.
Last week, the peer-reviewed manuscripts of the pilot phase of a study known as the Global Glyphosate Study were revealed at a European Parliament press conference, and it’s all bad news for the maker of the world’s most popular glyphosate herbicide, Roundup.
In the short-term pilot study, glyphosate-based herbicides were shown to change some very important biological parameters in rats at exposure to the level set by the Environmental Protection agency as “safe” of 1.75 mg/kg per day. Some of the parameters that were altered relate to sexual development, the intestinal microbiome and genotoxicity. The papers will be published in the Environmental Health journal later this month.
One author of the report, Daniele Mandrioli, said that they found glyphosate in the gut bacteria of rats born to mothers who weren’t affected by it, something he believes is remarkable. He pointed out that gut microbiome disruptions have been linked to problems like diabetes, obesity, and immunological problems.
Another researcher, Professor Philip J. Landrigan, said that these findings should be investigated further in comprehensive long-term studies given their potential to impact a significant number of people around the world.
Monsanto goes on the attack
Monsanto reacted exactly how you’d expect them to react, by attacking the scientists and institutions involved in the study. The firm’s global strategy vice president, Scott Partridge, told The Guardian that The Ramazzini Institute is an “activist organization with an agenda that they have not disclosed.”
Get CLEAN FOOD and help support our mission to keep you informed: The Health Ranger Store lab verifies everything we sell with accredited testing for heavy metals, microbiology and food safety. Certified organic facility, ISO-accredited on-site laboratory, no GMOs or synthetic ingredients. The world’s #1 source of lab-verified clean foods and superfoods for nutritional healing. 600+ products available. Explore now.
It’s an unsubstantiated claim in any event, and it’s also worth noting that the Global Glyphosate Study was carried out by many other bodies in addition to The Ramazzini Institute, such as the Italian National Institute of Health, George Washington University, the Icahn School of Medicine at New York’s Mount Sinai, the University of Bologna, and the Genoa Hospital San Martino. Of course, they won’t be able to attack all of those institutes, so they decided to single one out.
In fact, The Ramazzini Institute is a well-respected institution manned by expert scientists for more than four decades. Their goal is to protect public health, and their activities relate to finding carcinogens and evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs and ingredients. Their long-term studies have a lot of clout, with past research on benzene, vinyl chloride, and formaldehyde leading to changes in global regulations.
One thing that makes the Ramazzini studies so respected is the fact their design mirrors humans very closely. For example, they tend to follow rodents from prenatal life and observe them until their natural death; most labs “sacrifice” rats about two thirds of the way through their lifespan, which equates to around age 60 in humans. Many people develop cancers later in life, so other researchers miss those cancers that tend to show up in old age.
Glyphosate is everywhere
As the most common herbicide in the world, 18.9 billion pounds of glyphosate have been spread across the planet since 1974. Its use has risen 15-fold since the introduction of genetically modified crops, even though they were initially marketed as being able to reduce the need for herbicide. In the last two decades, the levels of glyphosate found in the human bloodstream have risen by more than 1,000 percent.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015; Monsanto is now trying to campaign against them and stop the American government from funding them. Now, it looks like the respected institutions involved in the latest study to expose the dangers of their products will also be targeted by their smear campaigns.
‘The current estimated annual cost for nine of the most common neurological disorders in the U.S. was a hefty $789 billion, a recent paper revealed. According to the paper, these conditions include Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, traumatic brain injury and Parkinson’s disease, as well as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injury.
Researchers also projected that health care costs associated with brain damage will continue to increase as the number of elderly patients were expected to double between 2011 and 2050. Data showed that medical costs related to dementia and stroke alone were estimated to be more than $600 billion by 2030.
“The findings of this report are a wake-up call for the nation, as we are facing an already incredible financial burden that is going to rapidly worsen in the coming years. Although society continues to reap the benefits of the dramatic research investments in heart disease and cancer over the last few decades, similar levels of investment are required to fund neuroscience research focused on curing devastating neurological diseases such as stroke and Alzheimer’s, both to help our patients and also to avoid costs so large they could destabilize the entire health care system and the national economy,” said lead author Dr. Clifton Gooch, ScienceDaily.com reports.’
Research has linked long-term pesticide exposure to infertility, birth defects, endocrine disruption and obesity, reduced IQ, neurological diseases, cancer and many other health and environmental problems
Two United Nations experts are now calling for a comprehensive global treaty to regulate and phase out toxic pesticides in farming, and to move food production across the world toward more sustainable agricultural practices
Another recently released report, “Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture,” by the European Parliament, details the many benefits of organics
In a 2013 survey, 71 percent of Americans expressed a concern over the number of chemicals and pesticides in their food supply.1 And no wonder — research has linked long-term pesticide exposure to infertility,2 birth defects,3,4 endocrine disruption5 and obesity, reduced IQ,6 neurological diseases7 and cancer.8
It is only a common-sense conclusion that reducing your pesticide exposure would result in improved health.
The amount of pesticides used both commercially and in residential areas has grown immensely since 1945. More than 1 billion pounds are used each year in the U.S. alone. Worldwide, an estimated 7.7 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to crops each year, and that number is steadily increasing.9
According to a 2012 analysis,10 each 1 percent increase in crop yield is associated with a 1.8 percent increase in pesticide use. Logic tells us this is an unsustainable trajectory when you consider the health and environmental ramifications associated with pesticide use and exposure.
As just one example, studies done by the Chinese government show that 20 percent of arable land in China is now unusable due to pesticide contamination!11 Every now and then, though, a ray of hope descends.
Earlier this month, two United Nations (UN) experts called for a comprehensive global treaty to not only regulate but actually phase out toxic pesticides in farming, and to move food production across the world toward more sustainable agricultural practices.
This is a significant change in stance that can — and hopefully will — have far-reaching consequences.
UN Calls for Global Treaty to Promote Sustainable Farming Without Toxic Pesticides
The two experts, Hilal Elver, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food and Baskut Tuncak, the special rapporteur on toxics, shared research with the Human Rights Council in Geneva showing pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year.
Chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility. As reported by Sustainable Pulse:12
“The experts particularly emphasized the obligation of States to protect the rights of children from hazardous pesticides … The experts warn that certain pesticides can persist in the environment for decades and pose a threat to the entire ecological system on which food production depends …
The experts say the use of neonicotinoid pesticides is particularly worrying because they are accused of being responsible for a systematic collapse in the number of bees around the world. Such a collapse, they say, threatens the very basis of agriculture as 71 percent of crop species are bee-pollinated.
While acknowledging that certain international treaties currently offer protection from the use of a few pesticides, they stressed that a global treaty to regulate the vast majority of them throughout their life cycle does not yet exist, leaving a critical gap in the human rights protection framework.”
The special rapporteurs challenged the pesticide industry’s “systematic denial of harms” and “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics,” noting the industry is spending massive amounts of money to influence policymakers and contest scientific evidence showing their products do in fact cause great harm to human and environmental health.
Toxic Pesticides Are Not an Irreplaceable Farming Necessity
Even more importantly, their report firmly denies the idea that pesticides are essential to ensure sufficient amounts of food for a growing world population, calling the notion “a myth.”13
Not only have decades of heavy pesticide use failed to eliminate global hunger, they said, the same chemicals have now become a troubling food contaminant — contaminants made all the worse by the fact that they cannot be washed off like many older generation pesticides could. According to Elver and Tuncak:14
“The assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that pesticides are necessary to achieve food security is not only inaccurate, but dangerously misleading.
In principle, there is adequate food to feed the world; inequitable production and distribution systems present major blockages that prevent those in need from accessing it …”
Moreover, the report highlighted developments in sustainable and regenerative farming, where biology can completely replace chemicals, delivering high yields of nutritious food without detriment to the environment.
“It is time to overturn the myth that pesticides are necessary to feed the world and create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production,” they said.
Which Foods Are the Most Contaminated?
According to the 2017 Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15” reports,15,16,17 which rank foods based on highest and lowest pesticide contamination, strawberries still top the list of foods most likely to contain the highest amounts of residues, containing a minimum of 20 pesticides — twice the amount of the second-most contaminated crop — while non-GMO sweet corn has the lowest amounts.
EWG’s Dirty Dozen — Foods containing the highest amounts of pesticide residues and therefore best to purchase organic include:
EWG’s Clean 15 — Foods containing the lowest amounts of residues, and therefore safer to buy conventional if you cannot afford organic varieties include:
European Parliament Report Highlights Benefits of Organic Foods
Another favorable piece of news is the recently released report,18 “Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture,” by the European Parliament, detailing the many benefits of organics. The report is unusually comprehensive in that it reviews a wide range of effects of organics, from nutritional content and the benefits of fewer pesticides to environmental impacts and sustainability.
Its conclusions are based on hundreds of epidemiological and laboratory studies and food analyses. The clearest benefits of organics on human health were found to be related to lowered pesticide, antibiotic and cadmium exposure. As noted by Civil Eats:19
“Most striking in its findings is the evidence suggesting organic food can help protect children from the brain-altering effects of some pesticides. And while there is evidence of greater nutrient content in some organic food — particularly milk and meat — as health benefits, these differences appear to be less significant than organic food’s lack of hazardous chemicals …
The report was prepared for a European audience, but its findings clearly apply to the U.S. ‘They did a really comprehensive job of a global literature search, so I don’t think anything in the report wouldn’t be applicable,’ said Boise State University assistant professor of community and environmental health Cynthia Curl, who researches links between diet and pesticide exposure …
‘As a consequence of reduced pesticide exposure, organic food consequently contributes to the avoidance of health effects and associated costs to society,’ write the authors, noting that research suggests these costs are currently ‘greatly underestimated.’”
Consumer Rights Group Sues EPA Over FOIA Violations
Although the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide — as a probable human carcinogen in 2015,20 the product has not been pulled from the market. Citing this finding and other research, more than 60 cancer patients are coordinating lawsuits against Monsanto.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), contradicted the IARC’s findings when it, in September, 2016, declared glyphosate “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans21 — a determination that has been met with severe criticism and accusations of violating EPA guidelines22 and protecting Monsanto’s interests23 at the expense of public health.
Now the consumer rights group, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), has filed a federal lawsuit against the EPA for violating Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provisions. As reported by USRTK:24
“The lawsuit … seeks documents related to EPA’s assessment of … glyphosate … [USRTK] requested the EPA records after the EPA posted an internal memorandum titled “GLYPHOSATE: Report of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee” to the agency’s website on April 29, 2016.
The internal EPA report, known as the CARC report, concluded that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA then deleted the public posting on May 2, saying that the document was posted inadvertently.
But before it was deleted Monsanto officials copied the document, promoted it on the company website and on social media and made reference to it in a court hearing dealing with lawsuits filed by agricultural workers and others who allege Monsanto’s herbicide gave them cancer.
The May 12, 2016 FOIA request asked for certain records relating to the CARC report on glyphosate as well as records of communications between Monsanto and EPA officials that discussed glyphosate issues. Under FOIA, the EPA had 20 working days to respond to the request, but well over 190 working days have now passed and the EPA has yet to produce any records in response to the request …”
Glyphosate — A Most Troublesome Toxin
Glyphosate is most heavily applied on GE corn, soybeans and sugar beets, but it’s also commonly used to desiccate conventional (non-GMO but non-organic) wheat and protect other conventional crops from weeds. Disturbingly, glyphosate and Roundup may actually be even worse than DDT, having been linked to an ever-growing array of health effects, including but not limited to:25,26
Nutritional deficiencies, especially minerals, as glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop
Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (these are essential amino acids not produced in your body that must be supplied via your diet)
Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself)
Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism; sulfate deficiency
Systemic toxicity — a side effect of extreme disruption of microbial function throughout your body; beneficial microbes in particular, allowing for overgrowth of pathogens
Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation, leaky gut and food allergies such as gluten intolerance)
Enhancement of damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes
Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer’s disease
Increased antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics
Increased cancer risk.27,28,29,30 Since the IARC’s determination, agricultural personnel have begun suing Monsanto over past glyphosate exposure, claiming it played a role in their bone cancer and leukemia31,32
The Many Drawbacks of Industrialized Agriculture
The UN’s special report on pesticides and call for a transition toward sustainable agriculture worldwide adds ammunition to an already well-stocked munitions store against conventional agriculture and genetic engineering. I’ve detailed a wide range of drawbacks of chemical-dependent industrial farming in previous articles, including the following:
Degrades and contaminates soil
Grains account for about 70 percent of our daily calories, and grains are grown on about 70 percent of acreage worldwide. The continuous replanting of grain crops each year leads to soil degradation, as land is tilled and sprayed each year, disrupting the balance of microbes in the soil.
Top soil is also lost each year, which means that, eventually, our current modes of operation simply will no longer work. Soil erosion and degradation rates suggest we have less than 60 remaining years of topsoil.33
Forty percent of the world’s agricultural soil is now classified as either degraded or seriously degraded; the latter means that 70 percent of the topsoil is gone. Soil degradation is projected to cause 30 percent loss in food production over the next 20 to 50 years. Meanwhile, our global food demands are expected to increase by 50 percent over this span of time.
As explained in Peter Byck’s short film, “One Hundred Thousand Beating Hearts,” farm animals form symbiotic relationships where one species helps keep parasites from overwhelming another. It is the separation of crops and animals into two distinctly different farming processes that has led to animal waste becoming a massive source of pollution rather than a valuable part of the ecological cycle.
Contaminates water and drains aquifers
Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of our fresh water use. When the soil is unfit, water is wasted. It simply washes right through the soil and past the plant’s root system. We already have a global water shortage that’s projected to worsen over the coming two or three decades, so this is the last thing we need to compound it. On top of that, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a major water polluter, destroying what precious little water we do have.
The EPA has noted that U.S. states with high congregations of CAFOs report 20 to 30 serious water quality problems each year.34 According to a report35 by Environment America, corporate agribusiness is “one of the biggest threats to America’s waterways.” Tyson Foods Inc. is among the worst, releasing 104.4 million pounds of toxic pollutants into waterways between 2010 and 2014; second only to a steel manufacturing company.
Contributes to greenhouse gas emissions
While fertilizer production produces its share of greenhouse gases, most of the emissions occur upon application. According to the International Panel on Climate Change, 1 out of every 100 kilos of nitrogen fertilizer applied to farm land ends up in the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N2O), a potent greenhouse gas (300 times more potent than CO2) known to deplete the ozone.36
In 2014, the amount of N2O created by nitrogen fertilizer spread on American farmland was equal to one-third of the N2O released by all cars and trucks in the U.S. More recent research suggests the real number is three to five times higher than that.
Reduces biodiversity
The efficiency model of large-scale industrialized agriculture demanded a reduction in diversity. Hence, we got monoculture: farmers growing all corn, or all soy, for example. Monoculture has significantly contributed to dietary changes that promote ill health. The primary crops grown on industrial farms today — corn, soy, wheat, canola and sugar beets — are the core ingredients in processed foods known to promote obesity, nutritional deficiencies and disease.
According to a report by the Royal Botanic Gardens in the U.K., one-fifth of all plants worldwide are now threatened with extinction, primarily through the expansion of agriculture.37 Ethanol and corn sweetener subsidies have also led to farmers abandoning conservation measures designed to preserve fragile lands and protect biodiversity in the natural landscape.38
Worsens food safety and promotes pandemic disease
Agricultural overuse of drugs, especially antibiotics, has led to the development of drug-resistant disease,39 which has now become a severe health threat. Pandemic outbreaks are also becoming more prevalent in CAFOs, revealing the inherent flaws of industrialized animal farming.
In 2015, an avian flu outbreak spread across 14 states in five months. The year before that, a pig virus outbreak killed off 10 percent of the American pig population. As noted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy:40 “The rapid spread of new disease strains … is one very visible reason why the expansion of factory-style animal production is viewed as unsustainable.”
Threatens food security by decimating important pollinators such as butterfly and bee populations.41
Promotes nutritional deficiencies and poor nutrition
Industrial farming is set up and subsidized to grow ingredients used in processed foods. This is the cheapest way to feed the masses. However, what people really need more of in order to thrive is fresh produce.
According to research42 presented at the 2016 American Heart Association’s Epidemiology meeting, reducing the price of fruits and vegetables by 30 percent could save nearly 200,000 lives over 15 years by lowering rates of heart disease and stroke.
If people added just one additional serving of fruits and vegetables a day, up to 3.5 million deaths from heart disease could be prevented in just two years. Testing also reveals nutrient content of foods has dramatically declined across the board since the introduction of mechanized farming in 1925. For example:
To receive the same amount of iron you used to get from one apple in 1950, by 1998 you had to eat 26 apples; today you have to eat 36
Between 1950 and 1999, levels of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C levels in 43 different vegetables and fruits significantly declined43
Analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that, on average, calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels dropped 37 percent; vitamin A levels dropped 21 percent; vitamin C levels declined by 30 percent
Healthy soils contain a large diversity of microorganisms, and it is these organisms that are responsible for the plant’s nutrient uptake,44,45 health and the stability of the entire ecosystem. The wide-scale adoption of industrial farming practices has decimated soil microbes responsible for transferring these minerals to the plants.
If we do not change, we will eventually reach a point of no return, where soils will be too depleted and microbially “dead” to grow food. Conventional may be more efficient, and may provide somewhat greater yields in some cases, but in the long term it’s unsustainable.
Necessitates the use of toxins, poisons and harmful mechanical farming methods:
Industrialization led to the separation of crops and livestock farming into two different specialties. That change alone has done tremendous harm, as livestock are actually a core component of regenerative agriculture. As a result, a whole host of land maintenance services that animals serve for free have had to be replaced with chemical and mechanical means — all of which have detrimental effects on human health and the environment.
Is less profitable than organic farming and cannot affordably and sustainably increase production
Research has even shown that conventional farming cannot significantly compete with organic in terms of profitability. At least 1,000 studies have compared organic and conventional farming in terms of productivity, environmental impact, economic viability and social wellbeing.
One such study46,47 found that organic farms are more profitable,48,49 earning farmers anywhere from 22 to 35 percent more than their conventional counterparts. They also produce equally or more nutritious foods with fewer or no pesticide residues. Organic farms also use far less energy, were found to be at a distinct advantage during droughts, and provide unique benefits to the ecosystem, along with social benefits that are hard to put a price tag on. According to one of the authors:
“If I had to put it in one sentence, organic agriculture has been able to provide jobs, be profitable, benefit the soil and environment and support social interactions between farmers and consumers. In some ways, there are practices in organic agriculture that really are ideal blueprints for us to look at feeding the world in the future. Organic may even be our best bet to help feed the world in an increasingly volatile climate.”
Assures decimation of food production should feared climate changes turn into reality
Recent research50,51 indeed confirms that conventional farming methods cannot protect us from a repeat of the devastating conditions experienced during the 1930s “dust bowl,” a time when consecutive droughts decimated food production in the U.S. According to simulations, if the U.S. were to experience the same kind of drought as in 1936, we’d lose 40 percent of our corn and soy, and 30 percent of our wheat.
These losses are very similar to those back in 1936. But when including current climate change trends into their calculations, crop losses increase by 25 percent for each 1-degree increase in temperature. A 4-degree increase in average temperature would reduce crop yields by a staggering 80 percent over the course of a season. As noted by bioethicist George Divorsky:52
“Given recent predictions53 that parts of the U.S. could soon experience “megadroughts” lasting for as long as 35 years (yes, you read that correctly), these results should serve as a serious wakeup call.”
Directly promotes ill health and chronic disease
Health statistics suggest the average toxic burden has become too great for children and adults alike. More than half of all Americans are chronically ill, and toxins in our food appear to play a primary role. According to Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno,54founding president of Bastyr University, toxins in the modern food supply are now “a major contributor to, and in some cases the cause of, virtually all chronic diseases.”
A recent report55,56 by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.57 which represents OB-GYNs in 125 countries, warns that chemical exposures, including pesticides, now represent a major threat to human health and reproduction. Pesticides are also included in a new scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals by the Endocrine Society task force.58,59
This task force warns that the health effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals is such that everyone needs to take proactive steps to avoid them — especially those seeking to get pregnant, pregnant women, and young children. Even extremely low-level pesticide exposure has been found to considerably increase the risk of certain diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease.
What Can You Do to Protect Your Family Against Pesticides?
In order to reduce your exposure to toxic pesticides, you’d be wise to make some changes in your lifestyle choices. Here are just a few suggestions to help you get started.
Eat organic foods. Look for organic produce and grassfed meats and dairy products. Investigate the farmers markets in your area and consider planting your own garden to supply produce through the summer months. Although buying organic foods may be slightly more expensive today, they help to reduce your overall health costs in your future.
Go green in your lawn and garden care. You don’t have to give up a green lawn if you want to remove pesticides from your garden. However, it may take a season or two in order to get the growth you’re looking for.
Talk with your school board about lawn care at your children’s school. Pesticides sprayed on the school lawn and play areas can increase your child’s exposure. You may be able to change how they care for the lawn when you educate the administration about the risks involved to the children.
Play in a healthy environment. Before joining a golf club or playing frequently, talk with the course superintendent about the pesticides they use to control weeds and insects. Bring members together to request cleaner and safer lawn care. Talk to your city administrators about the care given to the lawn in your local parks. Educate them about the risks to adults, children and pets from pesticides.
Claire Robinson looks at a Brazilian public health organization’s reported denial of a link between pesticides and microcephaly
Recently all hell broke loose after I published articles on GMWatch and in The Ecologist which flagged up the possible role of pesticides in the apparent surge in Brazilian babies born with abnormally small heads (microcephaly).
The articles were based primarily on a report by a group of Argentine doctors, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, but it also took in a report by Abrasco – a group of Brazilian public health researchers who had condemned the strategy of chemical control of Zika-carrying mosquitoes. The researchers said this was contaminating the environment as well as people. And both reports seemed to point to a possible link between a mosquito insecticide (pyriproxifen) and the birth defects being attributed to the Zika virus.
The editor of The Ecologist received a torrent of invective after he turned down a demand that my article be retracted. The grounds for complaint was an apparent denial by Abrasco of a link between pesticides and microcephaly. According to the Wall Street Journal, Abrasco had “denounced the assertion of any link” and cautioned against “spreading untruths”.
A Brazilian press article quoted Abrasco’s coordinator Marcelo Firpo as stating: “We did not say that the larvicide [pyriproxifen] is associated with microcephaly.” He added that any suggestion that Abrasco had ever asserted such a link was a “misunderstanding”.
In contrast, the coordinator of the Argentine physicians’ group, Dr Medardo Avila Vazquez, stood by his group’s doubts about pyriproxifen’s safety. In fact, in his statement to the Wall Street Journal, he went further than anything in the group’s original report, saying, “We think it is likely that Pyriproxyfen is the problem.”
What does Abrasco’s report really say?
Whatever Marcelo Firpo may have told the press, Abrasco’s original report is a shocking and damning indictment, not just of pyriproxyfen, but of pesticidal approaches to mosquito-borne diseases like Zika.
Abrasco’s report says that the emergence in 2014 of the microcephaly increase occurred within certain “contexts and contingencies”, and that these must be assessed in any attempt to understand the phenomenon. It goes on to list them. Chief among them are the environmental degradation and poor sanitation that are the main focus of the Abrasco report.
The next is “The continued use of larvicidal chemicals in the drinking water of families for more than 40 years” – a strategy which the report says has failed, in that it has not resulted in a decrease in mosquito-borne diseases.
The report continues, “In 2014 a new larvicide, pyriproxyfen, was introduced into the drinking water”. Abrasco notes that the government’s own technical guidance document states that pyriproxyfen is “a juvenile hormone analogue or juvenoid, with the mechanism of action of inhibiting the development of insect adult characteristics (e.g., wings, maturation of the reproductive organs and external genitalia), maintaining an ‘immature’ form (nymph or larva), that acts as an endocrine disruptor and is teratogenic, inhibiting the formation of the adult insect.”
Of course, this does not prove that pyriproxyfen is an endocrine disruptor in humans. The Science Media Centre’s ‘expert’ brought in to discredit the larvicide hypothesis, Dr Ian Musgrave, is keen to suggest that it is not. But are things really that clear cut? That’s a subject I’ll return to in a subsequent article.
Abrasco goes on to demand “the suspension of the use of chemicals” (not just pyriproxyfen) and “the adoption of mechanical cleaning methods and environmental sanitation” to drive down mosquito populations.
Pyriproxyfen the tip of the iceberg
Abrasco’s report makes clear that in the regions where microcephaly is a problem, pyriproxyfen is just the tip of the iceberg. The people, particularly the poor, are being poisoned via multiple sources, with multiple chemical agents.
The report says that the widespread application of toxic insecticides and larvicides – sometimes in drinking water – has compromised people’s immune system by increasing their toxic load.
For example, Abrasco points out that an organophosphate insecticide, temephos (commercially known as ABATE®) was introduced in Brazil in 1968 as a larvicide in drinking water, especially in North and Northeast Brazil. Impacts on people’s health have not been studied, according to Abrasco. The authorities continued to use it in spite of the fact that the mosquitoes have developed resistance.
Abrasco warns: “The damage to human health arising from the use of chemicals in mosquito control has not been properly studied in vulnerable populations, including public health workers. Its harmful effects are totally disregarded, such as the increased virulence of viruses, and the emergence of other diseases such as allergies, immunotoxicity, cancer, hormonal disorders, and neurotoxicity, among others.”
Abrasco denounces the use of mosquito “fogging” with known toxic chemicals such as Malathion. It calls this practice “a veritable health nonsense”, since “This product is an organophosphate pesticide considered by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as potentially carcinogenic for humans”.
Abrasco dismisses as “absurd” the official assurances that, “The doses of larvicides are so low and of such low toxicity that we can put them in the drinking water without danger”. It also says that official advice on the amount of larvicide to be applied to drinking water is misleadingly based on the size of the container, regardless of how little water it contains, leading to potential dangers from unsafe concentrations being ingested.
Abrasco criticises the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) for supporting programmes of applications of pesticides “produced by a very lucrative business cartel”, even though “A simple consultation of the chemical safety data sheets of these products delivered by companies to public health authorities shows that these products, such as Malathion, are neurotoxic to the central and peripheral nervous system, and cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty breathing and symptoms of muscle weakness – including at the concentrations used in vector control.”
Anyone feeling reassured about the safety of pesticides yet?
As for biotechnological fixes like Oxitec’s sterile GM mosquitoes, Abrasco condemns them as inaccurate, unreliable and dangerous to ecosystems, as they focus “only on the mosquito, without taking into account the effects on non-target organisms”.
So any would-be pesticide defenders who take comfort from what Abrasco’s coordinator told the Wall Street Journal need to ‘man up’ and read Abrasco’s actual report – all of it. It doesn’t make for easy reading. But then the poisoning of people isn’t an easy topic.
Finally, one of the world’s leading virologists recently told The Guardian that there was “a strong possibility pesticides could be involved [in the microcephaly cases in Brazil] and this needed to be studied”. And Dr David Morens of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the US National Institutes of Health called the pesticide hypothesis “plausible”, though he added, quite rightly, “We haven’t heard enough scientific information to weigh in on whether it’s real”.
What’s urgently needed is more science and more data – not a bar on legitimate study, imposed by those determined to prevent investigation of pesticides.
ARYAN'S BLOG 